Draft for a Speech on the Agrarian Question in the Second State Duma

Ishall now proceed to the objections that may be raised against the peasants’
demands. And, strange as it may seem at first glance, in analysing the
objections to the peasants’ demands I mustin the maindeal with the
arguments of Mr. Kutler, representative of the so-called “people’s
freedom” party.

Thenecessity for this does not arise out of anydesireon my part to
argue with Mr. Kutler. Nothing of the sort.I should be very glad if those who champion the peasants’ struggle for land hadto argueagainst the “Rights”only. Throughout his
speech, however, Mr. Kutlerobjected, in substance, to the peasants’
demands as put forward by the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks: he objected
both directly (for instance, he disputed the proposal made by my comrade
Tsereteli on behalf of the entire Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party) andindirectlyby pointing out to the Trudoviks the need to curtail, need
to limit their demands.

DeputySvyatopolk-Mirsky did not actually expect to convince anybody. In
particular, he was far from expecting that he could convince the peasants. He
was not trying to convince, but wasexpressing his will, or, more
correctly, the will of most landlords. In simple and direct terms, the
“speech” made by Deputy Svyatopolk-Mirsky boils down tonoincreasewhatsoeverin the amount of land owned by the peasants.

DeputyKutler, on the contrary, was all the time using his powers of persuasion,trying to convincemainly the peasants to renounce that which he
declared to be impracticable and excessive in the Trudovik draft, and which, in
the draft of our Social-Democratic Party was not only impracticable but even
“the greatest injustice”, to use the words in which he expressed
himself, concerning the proposal made by the representative of
Social-Democracy.

Ishall now analyse Deputy Kutler’s objections and the main basis for
those views on the agrarian question, those drafts for agrarian reforms, that
are defended by the so-called “people’s freedom” party.

Letus begin with what Deputy Kutler, in his argument against my Party comrade,
called “the greatest injustice”. “It seems to me,” said
the representative of the Cadet Party, “that the abolition of private
property in land would be the greatest injustice, as long as the other forms of
property, real and personal estate, still remain!..;” And then farther:
“Since nobody proposes to abolish property in general, it is essential
that the existence of property in land be in every way recognised.”

Thatis the line of argument followed by Deputy Kutler, who
“refuted” Social-Democrat Tsereteli by statingthat “other property [other than landed property] was also acquired in a
      manner that was, perhaps, even less praise worthy”. The more I
      think over Deputy Kutler’s argument, the more I find it—how
      shall I express it mildly?—strange. “It would be unjust to
      abolish property in land if other forms of property are not abolished....”

But,gentlemen, kindly remember your own postulates, your own words and plans!
You yourselves proceed from the fact thatcertainforms of landed
property are “unjust”, and so unjust that they require a special law
on the ways and means of abolishing them.

Sowhat does this actually amount to? To saying that it is “the greatest
injustice” to abolishone formof injustice without abolishing
others?? That is what Mr. Kutler’s words amount to. This is the first time
I have been con fronted by a liberal, and such a moderate, sober,
bureaucratically-schooled liberal at that, who proclaims the principle of
“everything or nothing”! For, indeed, Mr. Kutler’s argument
is based entirely on the principle of “every thing or nothing”. I,
as a revolutionary Social-Democrat, must positively declare against such a
method of argument.

Imagine,gentlemen, that I have to remove two heaps of rubbish from my yard. I
have only one cart. And no more than one heap can be removed on one cart. What
should I do? Should I refuse altogether to clean out my yard on the grounds that
it would be the greatest injustice to re move one heap of rubbish because they
cannot both be removed at the same time?

Ipermit myself to believe that anyone whoreallywants to clean out
his yardcompletely, who sincerely strives for cleanliness and not for
dirt, for light and not for darkness, will have a different argument. If we
really cannot remove both heaps at the same time, let us first remove the one
that can be got at and loaded on to the cart immediately, and then empty the
cart, return home and set to work on the other heap. That’s all there is
to it, Mr. Kutler! Just that and nothing more!

Tobegin with, the Russian people have to carry away on their cart all that
rubbish that is known as feudal, landed proprietorship, and then come back with
the empty cart toa cleaner yard, and begin loading the second heap, begin clearing out the
rubbish of capitalist exploitation!

Doyou agree to that, Mr. Kutler, if you are a real opponent of all sorts of
rubbish? Let us write it into a resolution for the State Duma, using your own
words: “recognising, jointly with Deputy Kutler, that capitalist property
is no more praiseworthy than feudal landlord property, the State Duma resolves
to deliver Russia first from the latter in order later to tackle the
former”.

IfMr. Kutler does not support this proposal of mine I shall be left with the
firm conviction that, in sending us from feudal property to capitalist property,
the “people’s freedom” party is merely sending us from Pontius
to

Pilate,[1]as the saying goes, or, to put it more simply, is seeking
evasion, saving itself by flight from a clear statement of the question. We
have never heard that the “people’s freedom” party wants to
struggle for socialism (and is notthe struggle against capitalist
property a struggle for socialism?). But we have heard a lot, a very
great deal, about that party wanting to struggle for freedom, for the
people’s rights. But now, when the question on the order of the day
is not one of the immediate introduction of socialism but of the immediate
introduction offreedom, and freedom fromserfdom,
Mr. Kutler suddenly refers us to questions of socialism! Mr. Kutler
declares the abolition of landed proprietorship based on labour service and
bondage to be “the greatest injustice”—and this for the reason,exclusivelyfor the reason, that he has remembered the injustice
of capitalist property.... Have it as you will—it is rather strange.

Ihave believed until now that Mr. Kutler is not a socialist. Now I have
become convinced that he is not a democrat at all, that he is no champion of
people’s freedom—of real freedom, not people’s freedom in
inverted commas. Nobody in the world will agree to call or consider democrats
those people who, in an epoch of struggle for freedom, qualify as “the
greatest injustice” the abolition of that which is destroying freedom,
which is oppressing and suppressing freedom....

Mr.Kutler’s other objection was not directed against the Social-Democrat
but against the Trudovik. “It seemsto me,” said Mr. Kutler, “that it may be possible to imagine the
      political conditions under which the land nationalisation bill [he is
      referring to the project of the Trudovik Group; Mr. Kutler described it
      inaccurately but that is not the important thing at the moment] might
      become law, but I cannot imagine there being, in the near future,
      political conditions under which such a law could actually be
      implemented.”

Again,an astonishingly strange argument, but not in any way strange from the
standpoint of socialism (nothing of the sort!) or even from the standpoint of
the “right to land” or any other “Trudovik”
principle—no, it is strange from the point of view of that very same
“people’s freedom” we hear so much about from
Mr. Kutler’s party.

Mr.Kutler has all the time been trying to convince the Trudoviks that their
bill is “impracticable”, that they are wasting their time by
pursuing the aim of"radically reforming existing land relations”, and so
on and so forth. We now see clearly that Mr. Kutler sees thisimpracticabilityas due to nothing else butthe political
conditionsof the present day and the immediate future!!

Youwill excuse me, gentlemen, but this is really some sort of fog, some
unpardonable confusion of concepts. It is because we discuss and proposechangesto better bad conditions that we here call ourselves
representatives of the people and are considered members of a legislative
assembly. And in the thick of a discussion on the question of changing one of
the very worst conditions, the objection is raised:

“impracticable ... either now ... or in the near future ... political
conditions”.

Oneof the two, Mr. Kutler—either the Duma is itselfa political
condition, in which case it is unworthy of a democrat to adapt himself, to
readjust himself to whatever curtailments may arise out ofother“political conditions”, or else the Duma is not a “political
condition” but merely an ordinary office that has to take into
consideration what may or may not please those more highly placed—and in
the latter case we have no reason for posing as representatives of the people.

Ifwe are representatives of the people, we must say what the people are
thinking and what they want, and not thatwhich is agreeable to the higher-ups or some sort of “political
conditions”. If we are government officials, then I am perhaps prepared to
understand that we shall declare in advance that anything is
“impracticable” which the powers that be have given us to understand
is not to their liking.

...“Politicalconditions...”! What does that mean? It means:
military courts, an augmented secret police, lawlessness and lack of civil
rights, the Council of State and other equally sweetin-sti-tu-tionsof the Russian Empire. Does Mr. Kutler want to adapt his agrarian reform towhat is practicable under military courts, augmented secret police and
the Council of State? I should not be at all surprised if Mr. Kutler were to be
rewarded for that, not with the sympathy of the people, of course, but with a
medal for his servility!

Mr.Kutleris able to imaginethe political conditions under which the
bill to nationalise the land could become law.... Of course he can! A man who
calls himself a democrathas been unable to imaginedemocratic
political conditions.... But the task of a democrat who is counted among the
representatives of the people is not only to givehimselfa picture of
all kinds of good and bad things, but to give thepeopletruly popular
projects, declarations and expositions.

Mr.Kutler should not think of suggesting that I pro pose departing from the law
or infringing it in the Duma....

I am not proposing anything of the sort! There is no law that prohibits speaking
in the Duma about democracy and tabling really democratic agrarian bills. My
colleague Tsereteli did not infringe any law when he introduced the declaration
of the Social-Democratic group, which speaks of “the alienation of land
without compensation”, and abouta democratic state.

Mr.Kulter’s arguments in their entirety boil down to this—since
ours is not a democratic state there is no need for us to present democratic
land bills! No matter how you twist and turn Mr. Kutler’s arguments, you
will not find a grain ofany otheridea, ofany othercontent,
in them. Since our state serves the interests of the landowners we must not
(representatives of the people must not!) include anythingdispleasing to the landowners in our agrarian bills.... 0 no, Mr. Kutler, that
      is not democracy, that is not people’s freedom—it is something
      very, very far removed from freedom and not very far removed from
      servility.

[1]This Russian expression means “to one and the same
thing (or person)”.